In 2017, he unretired, but he’s never regained his former, er, glory. Still, he soldiers on. He continues to post videos on YouTube on his A Near for MenAn Ear for Men channel. He offers $120 an hour “consulting” services via Skype to men on such subjects as “relationship issues” (he has no training as a therapist), “divorce strategies” (he’s not a lawyer) and “diabetes management” (he’s not a doctor). And he continues to share his “Red Pill” wisdom on Facebook and Twitter, the latter of which he’s returned to on a new account despite being permabanned some time ago.

MRAs claim to care about abused men, but don’t actually do anything to help them in any tangible way, like setting up hotlines or shelters. (The only shelter for men in the US was set up by a feminist Domestic Violence organization that MRAs once tried to defund.) Instead, MRAs post shit like this, conflating actual abusive behavior by women with, well, women expecting to be treated with a modicum of consideration by their male partners.

But of course “wisdom” like this resonates with Elam’s remaining fans.

A veritable Algonquin Round Table here, huh?

I scrolled back a little on his Twitter, and found a couple more #RedPillRelationships pearls from ol’ Paul:

#redpillrelationships Women who cut their partners off sexually are no longer owed fidelity. By closing shop sexually, women are abandoning the relationship, literally. For men who have been betrayed in this way, sex with another woman isn't cheating and isn't cause for remorse.

#redpillrelationships Women don’t want to be loved so much as to be desired. They want to be desired because it feeds the feminine ego, but more so because it gives them control over a man. You don’t have to like this, but if you’re smart you won’t ever forget it.

Comments

I mean, IPV is not taken seriously enough whatever the genders involved, but the system is not uniquely stacked against men.
And per usual, the MRM and its apologists completely ignore male victims with male perpetrators.

>>>>>The idea that they would actually *want* to make someone else happy, enjoy their company for its own sake or place any value on someone’s affection for them never really crosses their minds.

Exactly. The idea of doing something for their girlfriend to make *her* happy, as opposed for securing future access to her vagina, is beyond them. So is the idea of sex as something that expresses intimacy or love, as opposed to a female form of payment for services rendered.

Even if we ignore how such men treat women, this view of relationships is certain to make *them* miserable. As so often, the very same flaws that make the women around them miserable make *them* miserable as well – just like good peolple who make those around them happy tend to be happy themselves. Plato and Shakespeare would agree.

If soy makes men too unmanly to get laid and to reproduce much, then why is Asia the most popular (sic) continent? Why have men in various cultures that have a much more soy based diet than Europe, Africaand the Americas traditionally had managed to have so many children over the millenia?

Now, this is kinda off topic and beside the point, but I’ve seen this argument presented before.

I don’t think historic human population growth has generally been limited by the amount of sex people have, and certainly not by men’s testosterone level or whatever it is that soy is supposed to affect. Rather, population growth was more or less determined by the gradual improvement of food production systems over millennia.

Nobody claimed men do not abuse women verbally or emotionally, but only that *women* do not (in general) abuse men *violently*. The claim is that there are relatively few female violent abusers, NOT that there are relatively few male verbal ones.

As most abusers are men, this claim is perfectly cosistent with many men abusing women verbally or emotionally too. It is merely saying that if, say, 80% of verbal abusers are men and 20% women, 98% of violent abusers are men and only 2% women. It is NOT claimed that, because 98% of violent abusers are men, 98% of emotional ones women.

Male abusers use every trick in the book. They do not restrict themselves. They use verbal abuse, gaslighting, lies, blackmail, suicide threats, etc. with just as much ease as female abusers. And then they *also* (generally) have size and strength and social power to their advantage.

Yup. Shortly before the term “stalking” came into popular parlance after the death of Rebecca Schaeffer, my ex became abusive by use of emotional blackmail.

His favorite technique was to ride his motorcycle out to a bar, get drunk and stupid and into a fight. Then, he’d show up on my doorstep for me to tend his wounds and threaten to ride around drunk on his bike (being sure to add that he’d nearly had an accident/been stopped and arrested for good measure) unless I let him stay at my place. I’d tell him he had to sleep it off on the couch, but he would try to sneak into my bed after I’d gone to sleep. When I kicked him out, he’d declare that if he couldn’t sleep in the bed, he’d go get more booze and ride his bike around. It was so blatant, but I was young and stupid and I felt sorry for him and responsible for his pain.

After about three rounds of this, I had a tantrum at him about how “staying friends” was ruining my life and it stopped. But that was when he became stalkery.

He’d call my apartment on weekends to make sure I was home. If I wasn’t, he’d show up at my door and interrogate me about my activities. I started parking my car at the apartment complex across the street so he’d think I was gone because if he saw my car, he’d bang on the door until the neighbors complained.

@John the one thing you forgot is that while men who abuse are, on average, stronger than women who abuse, that very fact will drive women to use weapons to escalate. Don’t try to tell us that man are so strong they are bulletproof.

“Individuals use whatever form of violence proves most effective for them: men, with greater physical strength, use direct physical violence, while women are more likely to use weapons in their violent acts against their partners.”

I don’t think historic human population growth has generally been limited by the amount of sex people have, and certainly not by men’s testosterone level or whatever it is that soy is supposed to affect. Rather, population growth was more or less determined by the gradual improvement of food production systems over millennia.

This is one of the problems I have with most ev-psych types—along with everything else, they act as though fertile humans (well, fertile women in particular) are rare, and as though conception is the difficult part.

Which can lead them into increasingly specious arguments about how some trait/behaviour is “a sign of fertility” or “maximizes the chances of conception” and that’s why (they think) it’s universal.

My understanding is that “ingroup” and “outgroup” are technical terms in English-language Sociology writing. Someone’s “ingroup” is the group of people with whom they identify, the people they see as “like me” and “on my side,” and with whom they feel comfortable. People are typically biased in favor of their ingroup.

An “outgroup” is a visible group of people who are not part of the ingroup. People tend to define themselves by their outgroups as much as by their ingroups — many people are more eager to tell you who they are not, what they don’t care about, and who they dislike than to tell you who they actually are or what they do stand for.

When the members of one ingroup start to think of one particular outgroup as enemies, threats, or obstacles, that’s called “outgroup derogation.”

So, when AVFM says that men in America are subject to “automatic outgroup derogation,” they are saying that Americans have been taught to see women as normal people and to see men as scary outsiders. That’s obviously not true, but AVFM doesn’t really care about truth.

Lainy – Thanks. The point is that abusive men will definitely use non-physical means to abuse and control. Frequently in tandem with physical abuse but sometimes not.

But really, I didn’t even think of it as abuse at the time because 1980s. It was a time when staying friends with your ex was a newish thing that supposedly marked you as a Mature Adult (and what 20-something isn’t eager to feel mature?) Thankfully, it only lasted for four months, give or take.

I realized how traumatized I actually was a couple of years later when I got a (totally work related) call from him and nearly had a panic attack! He had cross-trained into my career field which, WTF?? He thankfully didn’t realize who he was talking to because everyone used “handles” at work*. I recognized his voice and his handle clinched it. Handles were loosely based on your initials; his matched his first and last name, while mine were just letters in the middle of my last name. WHEW! bullet dodged.

*In military comms; we worked with others in our field all over the world. At that time, we were stationed in far-flung, different countries, I was VERY relieved to find.

I get what your saying completely. My first boyfriend didn’t use physical voilence against me until I was leaving him. A year and a half together and the only thing he would raise to me was his voice but he did a lot of shit that weighed me down before that. My point was trying to make and I doubt anyone here can disagree with that is that men use physical voilence more often and much more severe on average yhen a woman abuser will. Women abuser do it though, I’ve seen it first hand. Some very severe forms of it as well.

There was a guy in my group therapy who’s ex wife threw boiling water on him during an argument. Some one else on this thread mentioned it as well the female abusers will use tools against their male partners to really hurt them. I do agree for both types will use mental abuse way before physical abuse. I just strongly beleive that male abusers will use physical and sexual abuse Way more often and more severe on average then female abusers will.

I really hope I’m not hurting anyone by saying this and if I am, i am sorry. If this is painful for anyone tell me and I will stop talking about it. The last thing I want to do is cause any attacks.

There has been a welcome change, but it is recent. Men are now terrified to hit back, even when ‘justified.’ This is a great thing, I would not change it, and if on a jury I would be harsh on a wife beater if I was convinced of his guilt.

Times have changed. It’s no longer OK. And I’m OK with that.

This is also why the Red Pill as amongst the most hated corners of the manosphere. “Soft next that bitch and go fuck two other women” is about as far from stalking as you can get. You really want us like that, outcome independent?

Works for me, though. I’ve never hit a woman but I’ve been pretty fucking tempted in the past. They call it “hen-pecked” for a reason, and sometimes those pecks come fast and furious, and escalating to physical would have been welcome respite. These days? Nah, I get 0 drama, because if I do…….next.

RE: “Divorce rape” yeah, my exwife acted very honorably, I would say extremely so. For every dude who got bent over the table, another one totally had it coming. I’m going with a Bayesian prior of 50/50, since I don’t science, bros…..but I won’t be rolling the dice again myself any time soon.

Mostly because most women in my cohort or even close to it have or want kids. I’m going to follow the advice of grandparents everywhere and start with grandchildren….not only because I’m still good looking enough to get free & non-committed sex, but also because I will not put myself in legal jeopardy by taking care of anyone’s kids.

Which is exactly what the joker Elam is banging on about. If I bond with a young family, there is a major risk that it will be a permanent one with legal action behind it. That’s exactly the state being “weaponized against men” and the state (or, if you will, “they”) very much want men like me to step up to the plate.

>>>>>>>These days? Nah, I get 0 drama, because if I do…….next. …. most women in my cohort or even close to it have or want kids…. [but] I’m still good looking enough to get free & non-committed sex…. will not put myself in legal jeopardy by taking care of anyone’s kids.

In other words, you don’t want a partner, you want a sex provider that makes no demands on your attention or your lifestyle, let alone (heaven forbid) wants children. She should just f**k you and not give you any drama, now that’s a good girl.

There has been a welcome change, but it is recent. Men are now terrified to hit back, even when ‘justified.’

… I think the rates of domestic violence put the lie to this that it is.

Works for me, though. I’ve never hit a woman but I’ve been pretty fucking tempted in the past. They call it “hen-pecked” for a reason, and sometimes those pecks come fast and furious, and escalating to physical would have been welcome respite. These days? Nah, I get 0 drama, because if I do…….next.

Are you saying that being ‘hen pecked’ is a justifiable reason to escalate to physical violence?

Also, A+ job on buying in to the ‘nagging wife’ cliche. Surely that isn’t, in and of itself, sexist.

For every dude who got bent over the table, another one totally had it coming.

A) No rape metaphors. Ever. Even about male rape, which some people give a pass on (where they really shouldn’t). That’s not cool.

B) WTF. I just… I don’t know enough about the court system from whatever you are from to go into this, I can just talk about how this is usually talked about on the right.

Even if the man was the ‘breadwinner’ and the wife was the ‘stay at home’ person, *the wife contributed to the success of the marriage*, and deserves money.

I will not put myself in legal jeopardy by taking care of anyone’s kids.

?????

Look, John. Friend. Buddy. Pal. You say you’ve made a journey into the manosphere, and come out the other end.

I would like to propose an idea.

You have not come out the other end, not yet.

On a different post, you were annoyed? about how people read your post, and went on about ‘context’. This is the context I read any post you make with:

“Is this an MRA thing to say? Probably not sarcasm. Probably an honest belief.”

Because, friend… You, like all of us, have been steeped in sexism and all the other -isms. But *you* need to do the work to find these little brain beasties, and figure out how to get rid of them.

Works for me, though. I’ve never hit a woman but I’ve been pretty fucking tempted in the past. They call it “hen-pecked” for a reason, and sometimes those pecks come fast and furious, and escalating to physical would have been welcome respite.

In a series of Twitter posts, the festival claimed transphobia underlay the attack on the event. Women Against Pornography refute the accusation: “In the letters we sent there was no mention of transgenderism. However, if transgenderism is apparently so closely linked with pornography then that’s not a very good advert for it. As radical feminists we are gender critical, although this didn’t form part of our criticism of the festival.”

So basically, “We’re transphobic, but we didn’t say so, so you don’t get to point out we are.”

Which is exactly what the joker Elam is banging on about. If I bond with a young family, there is a major risk that it will be a permanent one with legal action behind it. That’s exactly the state being “weaponized against men” and the state (or, if you will, “they”) very much want men like me to step up to the plate.

Grow up and settle down. Stop chasing younger women.

Sure, sounds like fun. /s

Wait I glossed over this.

What exactly are you saying here? Because it sure seems like you are saying “if I ‘bond’ (and by that I mean marry into/be common law with) a young family, they might expect me to continue fulfilling the role I have adopted.”

Like, if you marry the woman, there are legal consequences that say you have to still parent the kids?

WHY do MRAs always go “Whatever, who cares about the kids (biological, step-kids, adopted kids, whatever)!!! I know they think of me as an important figure in their life, but w/e, amirite boys?????”

Why do they hate kids so much? Do they not remember being a kid? And having people who are important to them?

Because this –

That’s exactly the state being “weaponized against men” and the state (or, if you will, “they”) very much want men like me to step up to the plate.

Is only applicable if you have some sort of *legal status* for them to enforce. So, either you are married, or are common law. If you are common law, WHY would you want to throw those children away???

And re: this –

Stop chasing younger women.

YES. Stop chasing younger women. If the women are running away, meaning you now need to ‘chase’ them… They are not interested. You are old.

Do you want to go out with someone *your* parents age? Probably not! Why would these ‘younger women’ want to go out with you?

In short, Grow up! Stop chasing younger women.

(The settle down is optional, you do you. Not everyone needs to have a family, and if you really can’t see yourself being a continued presence in the lives of kids who might start to rely on you, you definitely shouldn’t settle down with a woman with kids.)

I want to give John a little bit of credit, to be fair, because I actually think there are a host of reasons why they call it “hen-pecked.” Here is a sampling:

1) Because it evokes an image of small, ineffectual creatures annoying you for no real reason, which is exactly how many people view women.

2) Because it gives us a fun shorthand to use when mocking men for consulting with their wives or helping their wives with literally anything. What, is she the boss of you? You’re supposed to be the boss! Ha ha ha ha ha

4) Because the image is always of a single rooster with a harem of hens, and isn’t that what all men dream of? Except the joke’s on Chads of that sort, because hurrhurrhurr, women sure are a pain, aren’t they, imagine what having a lot of them around would be like.

The trouble with these responses to Elam’s work is that they ignore a lot of the politics and realities of relationships. I personally don’t date. I haven’t found it particularly wonderful. I don’t do hook ups because I find them immoral. So, what did I find when I dated? Well, to be honest, I found women sizing me up for my income. I have been asked several times at the very beginning of relationships or dates how much money I make. My response now would be: “Not the right amount for you.” When I was considering asking someone to marry me, I asked her about her views about signing a prenup. She said, “I would only ask for what’s fair.” Out she went. Besides being cheated on by women who don’t see anything particularly wrong with their behavior, I also found that women wanted me to put their careers ahead of my own. I almost destroyed my own career trying to help a partner start hers. I’ve also found a fair amount of borderline personality disorder floating around. I seriously dated a borderline with children, tried to help her with her issues, and helped her kids to the tune of 30 grand. All of that money went down the drain. And, yes, I tried to cater to her sexual needs while not getting my own met. All told, I have found contemporary relationships pretty destructive for men. These relationships could offer children, but with the way the family courts work, you might not be able to transmit your values to them. So, what’s the point? I’m going to start a foundation and transmit my values and my name that way. I don’t do relationships anymore. I could change my mind someday.

What’s fascinating about all of this is that people seem upset by the notion that withholding sex might be abusive. If a male ever withheld money, he would be called cheap or abusive. It’s kind of a double standard. My position is that nobody owes anybody anything.

I’m not particularly angry (how can you be angry at the weather or the landscape not allowing you to perform some activity; it is what it is), but I don’t think the combination of third wave feminism and anti-male sentiment bodes well for contemporary relationships. That’s not anger; it’s just a risk-return assessment of the current dating/relationship scene.

Who knows? It could mean marrying someone with grandchildren so that he gets the fun of being a grandparent without the responsibility of being a parent. I’ve often said I don’t want to be a parent but do want to be a grandparent because I like children in small doses when I can give them back to their parents.

If I bond with a young family, there is a major risk that it will be a permanent one with legal action behind it.

…I don’t understand why men can’t just simply say “Marriage and kids aren’t my thing” and leave it at that, without having to invoke paranoid fantasies of an oppressive military-bridal complex trying to trick men (but not women, somehow) into a lifetime of indentured servitude. People who fall in love and start families aren’t dupes.

Weird how MRAs never focus on all the legal and financial benefits that marriage brings, like tax advantages and lower insurance rates. That would spoil the narrative, I guess.

So you haven’t had the self-awareness to notice, but “nagging” is a pretty natural response to having your life tied to someone who keeps ignoring your needs. What you see as a nuisance, to women is a necessary and exhausting chore of reasserting our existence as human beings every time a man’s mind wanders off and he forgets it.

It took me a long time to appreciate this, but once seen it’s something you can’t unsee. How my father would procrastinate, put things off that the family needed in favor of things that were fun for him. How he’d forget things, be careless, expect others to fix his mistakes – but shout at us if we made mistakes ourselves. I didn’t appreciate the need for my mom asking him a second time if he’d turned the stove off – until the day I came out of the shower and saw that he’d left a pot of water boiling on the stove, the flame fully on, and then gone outside and forgotten all about it. The water was almost all boiled away. I was bullshit, but he acted like I was hysterical; he didn’t care. It wasn’t a big deal to him.

This forgetfulness and lack of caring is the mark of social privilege. Only the very privileged can afford to forget, and to not care, and still survive. My father does not have Alzheimer’s; he simply has never needed to remember everything, because the women in his life would do it for him. Patriarchy infantilizes cis men, and you guys mostly never even notice it.

Think about that for a while. And then think for a while longer about why your mind goes to thoughts of violence as a response. You are hitting like 95/100 red flags for still being abusive, matey; you need to start coming clean to yourself about things.

@Rabid Rabbit

I dig how, despite being supposedly against porn, they have internalized exactly the porn industry’s narrative about trans women. Like, the idea that being trans is a porn thing is not just ahistorical, it’s the kind of conclusion a cis person would come to by watching a lot of shitty industry porn and thinking it was realistic.

Ugh yes, that, thanks. It’s extra fun these days to look back at how clueless I was, and could afford to be, when I had even the most half-assed protection of living as male.

Me in 2009: “I, uh, don’t see why people should be paid to be homemakers? That, like, isn’t a job?”

Me in 2019: “The government should pay homemakers handsomely for doing a very important job, and incidentally I would be very very happy if I could get paid to do housework for my roomies who work full-time.”

I’m reminded of a great-uncle of mine who was a Catholic priest in Quebec, and grew up while the church still had a stranglehold on the province. At noon exactly, he would sit down and expect his lunch to appear before him. This was due to the good services of his housekeeper. One day, while staying at the family cottage, he went to get something out of the fridge and knocked out the milk. He gazed at it, said “Oops. The milk fell,” and walked away.

It’s one of the things about privilege, just how hard it can be to grasp it and, if you’re one of the non-privileged, to see how hard it is to grasp for the privileged. There’s a really interesting observation in the book I’m reading about the Southern slave-owning class: the authors point out that from our vantage point, when we look at the slave-owners, all we can see is slavery — and quite right too. But that falsifies our view of them, because we assume that they saw everything through the lens of slavery too — that everything they ever did, said, thought, was consciously inflected by the knowledge of slavery. But that’s just not how it was. Why would it be, if you’re used to slavery? How often do you think about that everything that goes into getting you electricity when you turn on the light? When you put out the trash, how often do you think about the people who pick it up? When you buy a new shirt — well, yes, maybe you worry that it was made in Bangladesh, but do you really think about the person who placed the shirt on the shelf, the truck driver who got it to the store, the person who packed it and put it in the truck, the person who made it, the people who gathered the material? Of course not — frankly, life would be impossible if you did think about absolutely everybody. Most often, the shirt’s just there, and you’re fine with that. The best one can do is find some guarantees that all the various people in the supply chain aren’t being treated completely like crap. But even that has to be pointed out to you. The essence of privilege is the things you just don’t think about — and sometimes, that involves things you ought to have checked on. It’s the fascinating thing that a lot of the slave-owners had loads of genuinely admirable qualities. There was just this weird disconnect that kept them from realizing that slavery was horrific — and in return, now we look at them, and that taints everything. And they’d probably be horrified, because it just never occurred to them, and we think it should have.

As for whether “homemaker” is a job or not: If it wasn’t, people wouldn’t hire maids and nurses. Though the tendency to hire illegal immigrants at slave wages still shows how little it’s actually valued.

And as for the radfems vs. the extremely queer-friendly porn festival: I also really “like” this quote from the radfems:

Feminist pornography is an oxymoron … feminism is not about individualistic wishes or desires, it is about liberating all women from the oppression of males. This can never be achieved by being tied up in a bed or by telling women that torture will make them free.

Alright, fine, I’m a straight cis male, but: How the hell is feminism not about individualistic wishes and desires?!? How the hell does “liberating all women from the oppression of males” not imply liberating women to indulge in their individualistic wishes and desires?!? Not to mention what if the woman’s being tied to a bed by another woman, or if it’s a man being tied to a bed by a woman… (Leaving trans people out of this argument, since we know what they think about them…)

Still, at least they have the courage of their convictions:

Women Against Pornography cited “security reasons” for not wanting to reveal their names.

As opposed to, say, the various people involved in the festival and the various filmmakers who didn’t hide their names.

Christ. I’m really not sure why this is disgusting me so much, but it really is.

There’s a really interesting observation in the book I’m reading about the Southern slave-owning class: the authors point out that from our vantage point, when we look at the slave-owners, all we can see is slavery — and quite right too. But that falsifies our view of them, because we assume that they saw everything through the lens of slavery too — that everything they ever did, said, thought, was consciously inflected by the knowledge of slavery. But that’s just not how it was. Why would it be, if you’re used to slavery? How often do you think about that everything that goes into getting you electricity when you turn on the light?

I sometimes wonder if our descendants will look at us in exactly that way. “You left all those lights on, in all those huge empty skyscrapers, night after night, after hours when no-one was using them. Even after the science was in about climate change. Did you ever think about what you were doing? How it would affect us?”

Well, I think the answer to that last question is pretty obviously “no.” Most of the time we can’t even think about what we’re doing to ourselves/other people alive right now, so what hope is there of us thinking about future generations?

that falsifies our view of them, because we assume that they saw everything through the lens of slavery too — that everything they ever did, said, thought, was consciously inflected by the knowledge of slavery

Well, no.

I believe that everything that they ever did, said, thought (as adults anyway) was UNconsciously inflected by their role in an enslavement-based society.

Certainly there would have been many things also consciously inflected by that reality, but most of it would be UNconscious. The choice to cut firewood or order someone else to cut it might be unconsciously influenced by their slavemaster role most of the time, but it’s also possible that an individual who owned slaves also would sometimes take an axe and hack bits of wood to small pieces because it served some purpose beyond mere functional acquisition of firewood. Someone who liked to get out of the house & stretch their muscles might choose to do it a few times a year, and when that happened they might consciously reject the choice to order a slave to do the work.

But when they think about the architecture that they like, it’s very likely that architecture they perceive as associated with slave houses would be unconsciously devalued. When they think about what physical features are attractive to them, unconscious bias almost certainly creeps in. There would be so many facets of life influenced by the slave-owning role that it’s hard to imagine which facets would not be perceived differently between slave owners and slaves.

Came here via Mr Elam himself. What a cracking read for a Saturday morning!!

I have a proposal. You don’t tell me how to live, think and treat women, and I don’t tell you that you’re wrong.

Considering that you probably think that treating women like shit is fine and dandy, I think I’m gonna just go ahead and tell you not to do that and just risk the prospect of you telling me that I’m wrong.

I have a feeling that you aren’t any better than the hundreds of other trolls we’ve chewed up on this site. So go ahead, try explaining why we’re wrong. It’ll be fun!

We have:
-women are money grubbers!
-women are crazy (mind the comments policy, doug!)
-women withhold sex, which is exactly equivalent to men withholding money
-women cheat, and see no problem with it.
-women expect doug to put their career above my own (the horror!!!! Imagine, one gender consistently prioritising their career advancement above all else? This sort of thing could start a movement!)
-family courts are stacked against men (while somewhat true, there was also bemoaning of the financial help he gave a woman that he was dating and her kids. Without knowing more, i’m going to guess that part of this 30k went to things like food and rent. Or maybe just bonbons? Also who is pushing for changes in who should be seen as the automatic primary care givers in relationships? Hint: no red pills there.)
-women are inscrutable forces of nature!

Donate to the Mammoth!

We Hunted the Mammoth is an ad-free, reader-supported publication written and published by longtime journalist David Futrelle, who has been tracking, dissecting, and mocking the growing misogynistic backlash since 2010, exposing the hateful ideologies of Men’s Rights Activists, incels, alt-rightists and many others.

We depend on support from people like you. Please consider a donation or a monthly pledge by clicking below! there's no need for a PayPal account.

Send comments, questions, and tips for stories to me at dfutrelle@gmail.com, or by clicking here